I was reading about Electron Shells and the rules about how many electrons can be in each shell. 2 in the first, 8 in the second, 18 in the third and so on.
But everything I read was talking about what is observed. There was no "why".
Is it known why there are these rules governing the number of electrons in each shell?
@Wyn-Davies saidYes, there is. Howevere this is a bit too complicated for the RHP Forums. I suggest a textbook on the basics of Quantum Physics.
I was reading about Electron Shells and the rules about how many electrons can be in each shell. 2 in the first, 8 in the second, 18 in the third and so on.
But everything I read was talking about what is observed. There was no "why".
Is it known why there are these rules governing the number of electrons in each shell?
1 edit
@Ponderable saidIs an electron an actual tiny particle? I get the idea that in their orbits they are smeared out all over the place. Is there an actual orbit they take like a satellite around Earth or is it more smeared out like a jillion different particles going who knows where?
Yes, there is. Howevere this is a bit too complicated for the RHP Forums. I suggest a textbook on the basics of Quantum Physics.
Like if you had a camera so fast it could track an individual electron around its orbit, would it be seen in a nice orderly orbit like a sat or would it like do sudden turns and take off in another direction for some time and doing that over and over?
@Wyn-Davies said2x1 = 2
I was reading about Electron Shells and the rules about how many electrons can be in each shell. 2 in the first, 8 in the second, 18 in the third and so on.
But everything I read was talking about what is observed. There was no "why".
Is it known why there are these rules governing the number of electrons in each shell?
2x1+ 2x3 = 8
2x1 + 2x3 + 2x5 = 18
2x1 + 2x3 +2x5 +2x7 = 34
They come in pairs because they have one of two possible "spins" which like electric charge has an "opposites attract" effect.
No matter how you explain something you can always say "why does the explanation work"? There is no ultimate answer to why the universe(s) function as they do.
@sonhouse saidAll things are both waves and particles but most things have much more of one nature than the other. However very tiny particles like electrons just happen to have both equally and neither entirely. Thus you can diffract electrons like waves or count them with quantized whole numbers like particles.
Is an electron an actual tiny particle? I get the idea that in their orbits they are smeared out all over the place. Is there an actual orbit they take like a satellite around Earth or is it more smeared out like a jillion different particles going who knows where?
Like if you had a camera so fast it could track an individual electron around its orbit, would it be seen in a ...[text shortened]... t like do sudden turns and take off in another direction for some time and doing that over and over?
It's closer to being "smeared" than individual particles. It's called "electron clouds" or "electron probability distributions". The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents the existence of cameras like you describe.
@AThousandYoung saidSo we will never be able to see an electron in motion no matter how much science advances? Do they even theoretically have actual orbits like sats? or are they just smeared out over the 360 degrees around a nucleus.
All things are both waves and particles but most things have much more of one nature than the other. However very tiny particles like electrons just happen to have both equally and neither entirely. Thus you can diffract electrons like waves or count them with quantized whole numbers like particles.
It's closer to being "smeared" than individual particles. It's ca ...[text shortened]... butions". The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents the existence of cameras like you describe.
2 edits
@sonhouse saidEach single electron or pair is "smeared" mostly in specific shapes that get more complex as the energy level of the electron(s) increases as you can see in the following image:
So we will never be able to see an electron in motion no matter how much science advances? Do they even theoretically have actual orbits like sats? or are they just smeared out over the 360 degrees around a nucleus.
tinyurl.com/r2rex6y5
So the lowest energy pair is in a 360 degree 3 dimensional sphere, but after that they get more complex with more lobes or even strange circles and lobes combined.
@AThousandYoung saidBut isn't that all an affect of statistics? Can it ever be proven that is what they would look like if you had some instrument fast enough with enough resolution to see the suckers stopped dead in their tracks?
Each single electron or pair is "smeared" mostly in specific shapes that get more complex as the energy level of the electron(s) increases as you can see in the following image:
tinyurl.com/r2rex6y5
So the lowest energy pair is in a 360 degree 3 dimensional sphere, but after that they get more complex with more lobes or even strange circles and lobes combined.
@sonhouse
This is actually a big question in physics. The models imply that an electron is a point object (i.e. zero size), although quantum uncertainty causes its location to anywhere in a "cloud" of possibilities.
The problem with it being a point object is that is has energy (and thus mass), meaning it would be a tiny black hole. Which obviously it isn't.
So what is going on? No-one currently has the answer.
@sonhouse saidPonderable has it correct.
But isn't that all an affect of statistics? Can it ever be proven that is what they would look like if you had some instrument fast enough with enough resolution to see the suckers stopped dead in their tracks?
To fully understand the doings and goings on of electrons would necessitate a thorough knowledge of quantum physics.
Because of this, I doubt we'll ever see a definable 'portrait' of an atom. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the fly in the ointment.
@Suzianne saidThorough meaning we have not yet gotten to fully understand quantum physics.
Ponderable has it correct.
To fully understand the doings and goings on of electrons would necessitate a thorough knowledge of quantum physics.
Because of this, I doubt we'll ever see a definable 'portrait' of an atom. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the fly in the ointment.
Maybe a hundred years from now we will. THEN see that camera in action🙂
@sonhouse saidWell, right now it seems like faster than light travel.
Thorough meaning we have not yet gotten to fully understand quantum physics.
Maybe a hundred years from now we will. THEN see that camera in action🙂
Einstein said it was impossible and so does the physics.
Remember, QM would have to guide the existence of such a camera. It would be like, "Well, we did create it, but it is unknown right now whether it is here right now."
It will need a breakthrough in physics thought to get there, just like FTL travel.
@Wyn-Davies saidSomeone may tell you the "why" of it, but you won't find it satisfying. You shouldn't find it satisfying.
I was reading about Electron Shells and the rules about how many electrons can be in each shell. 2 in the first, 8 in the second, 18 in the third and so on.
But everything I read was talking about what is observed. There was no "why".
Is it known why there are these rules governing the number of electrons in each shell?
For example, the s valence orbital can contain at most two electrons because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously (an electron is a type of fermion). The only way two electrons in the s orbital can differ is by their so-called spin. An electron can only be "spin up" or "spin down." So, an s orbital may contain one "spin up" and one "spin down" electron.
And what is this "spin"? Nothing. It's a number. Every type of quantum particle is uniquely defined by a list of quantitative parameters, and that's all there is to it. Quantum mechanics is a cookbook, and nothing more. It says nothing about the "why" of anything. This is the epistemic impasse that mainstream quantum physics finds itself in today.
@sonhouse saidElectrons around the nucleus of an atom literally "jump" from one energy level to another, hence the term "quantum leap." It's a workable model that allows us to manufacture neat technologies, but that's the limit.
Is an electron an actual tiny particle? I get the idea that in their orbits they are smeared out all over the place. Is there an actual orbit they take like a satellite around Earth or is it more smeared out like a jillion different particles going who knows where?
Like if you had a camera so fast it could track an individual electron around its orbit, would it be seen in a ...[text shortened]... t like do sudden turns and take off in another direction for some time and doing that over and over?
Sometimes it's more convenient to model an electron as a particle, sometimes as a wave. The so-called "wave-particle duality" is a conceptual headache, but that's quantum mechanics for you. When unobserved an electron is sort of just a cloud of potentiality. A probability distribution. A superposition of all its possible states. It won't "make up its mind" where it wants to be until it is observed.
The extension of quantum mechanics known as quantum field theory characterizes electrons as field excitations, which seems to me the best way of looking at it. And what is the essence of a field? Nobody knows.
From a metaphysical materialist viewpoint, anything that has spacetime extension (i.e. is not a singularity) should be expected to be "made of" something, otherwise what is extended? A field, such as an electromagnetic field, has spacetime extension, but to my knowledge is not supposed to be made of anything. Even if it were made of something, we must ask what that stuff might be, and what kind of "particle" constitutes the smallest mote of such stuff. Such a mote must, in its turn, also have spacetime extension, and so off we go: "turtles all the way down."
As far as I can see, if you want to escape the infinite regress of spacetime extension turtles, you have to conceive of a basis for reality that has the capacity to conjure our physics without relying on a physical substance, since what's physical must have extension. That is, the physical requires dimensionality. Consider that an idea is a "thing" without extension (the idea that 1+1=2 occupies no space or time), and ideas are conceived in consciousness. So, at bottom, I would say consciousness itself is the logical basis of reality. Not a god, but a basic kind of instinctual, phenomenal consciousness.
Obviously I've strayed a bit off topic.
@sonhouse saidA particle accelerator's bubble chamber can capture the trail of an electron that springs out of the collision of two other particles. Here's an example of a bubble chamber image:
So we will never be able to see an electron in motion no matter how much science advances? Do they even theoretically have actual orbits like sats? or are they just smeared out over the 360 degrees around a nucleus.
https://alumni.cern/news/2080449
I think bubble chambers are obsolete now. Not sure.